s^ 


ADDRESS    ON 


iili  i    Hi  I lilil  ill vv 


UNDERWOOD  TARIFF  BILL 


iliiiilii 


THORNTON 


llliiii 

M  Hi  mlm  1 1  ifiiiiii  ill! 


19  13 


UNIV.   OF    CAL. 
F.XPT.   STA.   LIB. 


VjTr'S'illliiiliirii' 


ImW"  t ffi  III \\\ 


■i 

1 


in!  •:!' 


m\\\\\\ 


PI ,.  I ' 


afi6m€T=&SB£E= 


UFTHE 
COLLEGE  OF 

^/CULTU*^, 


UNDERWOOD  TARIFF  BILL 


THE   SUGAR  SCHEDULE 

PROTESTING  AGAINST  THE  INJUSTICE  TO  LOUISIANA  AND  THE 

DOMESTIC    SUGAR    INDUSTRY    THAT    WOULD    RESULT    FROM 

PLACING   SUGAR   ON   THE   FREE   LIST   AFTER   THREE   YEARS 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  JOHN  RANDOLPH  THORNTON 

OF    LOUISIANA. 


IN  THE 


SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


THURSDAY,  JULY  31,  1913 


4170—12185 


WASHINGTON 

1913 


t> 


f^c' 


otft- 


SPEECH 


OF 


IT  ON.   JOHN    R.    Til  0  EXT  OX 


Mr.  THORNTON.  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  preface  the 
remarks  that  I  am  now  ahout  to  make  on  the  tariff  bill  by  the 
statement  that  the  preparation  of  those  remarks  was,  so  far 
as  my  part  of  it  was  concerned,  completed  last  Monday  before 
the  session  of  the  Senate  of  that  day.  I  make  this  statement 
because  those  who  heard  or  may  have  read  the  address  of  the 
Senator  from  Wyoming  [Mr.  Warren]  on  that  Monday  after- 
noon and  who  now  hear  or  may  hereafter  read  my  own  ad- 
dress may  notice  that  there  is  a  striking  similarity  of  thought 
and  expression  in  those  two  addresses  on  a  certain  question 
discussed  by  each  of  us. 

I  wish  to  preface  my  remarks  by  the  further  statement  that 
I  request  my  brother  Senators  that  I  be  not  interrupted  dur- 
ing the  presentation  of  my  argument  for  any  cause  whatever, 
as  I  should  like  to  have  my  address  appear  in  connected  form. 
In  making  this  statement  I  am  asking  no  more  of  others  than 
I  have  always  done  for  others,  for  during  my  term  of  service 
here  I  have  only  twice  interrupted  Senators  in  debate,  and  then 
each  time  because  I  knew  they  would  like  to  be  interrupted  by 
me,  and  in  each  case  they  have  afterwards  thanked  me  for  it. 
In  my  opinion  the  liberty  of  interruption  in  debate  in  this  body 
is  very  greatly  abused. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  well  known  that  I  notified  the  Senate 
Democratic  caucus  that  I  could  not  vote  for  the  Underwood 
tariff  bill  while  it  contained  the  free-sugar  provision  placed  in 
it  by  the  House  and  retained  by  the  Senate  Finance  Committee 
and  approved  by  the  caucus  and  presented  to  the  Senate  as  a 
Democratic  Tarty  measure. 

It  is  also  known  to  my  brother  Democrats  that  I  expressly 
reserved  in  the  caucus  the  right  to  offer  amendments  in  the 
Senate,  or  vote  for  amendments  offered  there  by  Others,  having 
reference  more  particularly  to  agricultural  products,  while  ex- 
pressly slating  at  the  same  time  that  if  such  amendments  were 
voted  down  I  would  subordinate  my  judgment  in  such  matters 
to  the  party  judgment,  as  nothing  but  the  sugar  provision  of  the 
bill  would,  in  my  opinion,  justify  me  in  refusing  to  vote  for  it 
4179—12185  3 


fionQ^Q, 


as  a  whole,  not  only  on  account  of  party  tics,  but  because  I  am 
in  accord  with  by  far  the  greater  part  of  its  provisions. 

My  reasons  for  refusing  to  vote  for  it  without  amendment  of 
the  sugar  clause  wore  given  to  my  brother  Democrats  in  the 
caucus  and  fully  understood  by  them,  but  in  justice  to  myself 
1  wish  these  reasons  to  be  known  to  the  Senate  as  a  body  and 
to  the  country  at  large. 

I  hold,  in  the  first  place,  that  in  my  position  as  a  Senator  of 
the  State  of  Louisiana  my  primary  allegiance  is  due  to  that 
Stale  and  that  I  would  not  be  justified  in  allowing  my  action  to 
be  controlled  by  the  party  caucus  on  any  matter  that  concerned 
the  vital  interest  of  Louisiana  when  such  acquiescence  would 
have  the  effect  of  having  me  vote  adversely  to  that  vital  interest. 

These  are  the  views  I  hold  with  reference  to  my  duty  to  my 
State  and  to  my  party  respectively,  and  by  them  I  must  abide 
as  long  as  I  have  the  honor  of  holding  in  this  body  the  commis- 
sion of  the  State  of  Louisiana. 

I  criticise  no  Senator  for  holding  a  different  view  as  to  his 
own  duty,  or  even  for  thinking  that  I  hold  an  erroneous  view  as 
to  my  own,  but  if  any  such  there  be,  I  ask  them  to  remember 
that  it  is  to  my  own  State  I  am  responsible  and  that  L  not 
they,  must  bear  the  burden  of  that  responsibility  and  the  judg- 
ment that  will  be  meted  out  to  me  by  the  people  of  Louisiana  for 
my  official  actions  here  as  their  representative. 

I  hold,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  promises  I  made  to  my 
people  on  any  given  question  before  they  so  highly  honored  me 
by  selecting  me  for  this  position  are  binding  on  me  in  con- 
science and  in  honor  when  that  question  comes  before  me  here 
for  consideration. 

I  hold,  in  the  third  place,  that  when  the  people  of  my  State 
have  signified  in  an  unmistakable  manner  their  wishes  on  any 
public  matter  coming  up  for  action  before  the  body  to  which 
they  have  accredited  me  it  is  my  bounden  duty  to  carry  out 
their  wishes,  so  far  as  I  can,  and  that  irrespective  of  my  own. 

Having  submitted  these  three  propositions  embodying  my 
views  as  to  the  general  principles  which  should  govern  my 
official  action  as  a  Senator  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  I  will  now 
attempt  to  show  their  application  to  the  special  case  under  con- 
sideration. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  attempt  to  prove  that,  under  my 
view  of  my  duty  to  Louisiana,  as  defined  by  me  under  the  first 
proposition,  I  am  justified  in  opposing  by  all  honorable  means 
in  my  power  the  enactment  of  this  bill,  for  I  think  there  is  no 
contention  against  the  conclusion  that  the  sugar  clause  of  it 
affects  the  vital  interest  of  my  State  most  unfavorably. 

4179— 12185 


It  has  boon  admitted  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives both  by  Mr.  IIakdwkk,  chairman  of  the  Subcommittee 
on  Ways  and  Moans  that  took  the  first  testimony  on  the  subject, 
ami  by  Mr.  Undeewood,  the  chairman  of  the  full  committee 
that  took  the  last,  that  free  sugar  would  destrsy  the  Louisiana 
sugar  industry,  though  both  feel  justified  in  their  course  on 
sugar  because  they  think  the  general  welfare  will  be  subserved 
by  it. 

It  was  in  recognition  of  this  fact  that  President  Wilson  re- 
quested and  obtained  the  three  years  of  grace  that  have  been 
accorded  us,  in  order  that  those  in  Louisiana  who  have  been  and 
are  still  dependent  on  the  cultivation  of  cane  as  their  means  of 
livelihood  might  have  this  time  in  which  to  try  to  make  arrange- 
ments for  their  livelihood  in  other  ways. 

I  appreciate  this  consideration  on  the  part  of  the  President 
and  thank  him  for  it  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  Louisiana 
principally  interested,  even  while  deeply  regretting  that  he  con- 
sidered it  his  duty  to  insist  on  ultimate  free  sugar,  that  being 
legislation  which  in  their  opinion,  and  in  my  own,  is  neither 
sanctioned  by  the  principles  of  necessity,  nor  the  general  wel- 
fare nor  justice. 

On  the  second  proposition,  the  proper  regard  for  pledges  made 
to  my  constituents,  I  wish  to  say  that  just  previous  to  my  elec- 
tion by  the  General  Assembly  of  Louisiana  in  the  beginning  of 
December,  1910,  that  body  passed  a  resolution  inviting  all 
candidates  for  the  Senatorship  to  appear  before  it  and  give  an 
expression  of  their  views  on  national  questions,  with  special 
reference  to  the  tariff  question,  and  the  four  candidates  for  the 
office  appeared  before  the  legislature  and  gave  an  expression 
of  their  views,  and  I  now  make  the  following  quotation  from  my 
address,  which  was  published  in  the  Louisiana  papers  immedi- 
ately afterwards: 

The  statement  published  in  a  New  Orleans  paper  that  on  last  Thurs- 
day night,  at  a  conference  of  my  friends,  I  had  recanted  my  statement 
of  Wednesday  and  said  I  would  yield  in  my  tariff  views  on  sugar,  vice, 
and  lumber,  if  necessary,  to  be  in  line  with  the  action  of  a  Democratic 
caucus,  is  false.  Those  gentlemen  from  every  part  of  the  State  who 
attended  that  large  conference  know  how  false  is  the  statement  that 
I  had  recanted.  They  know  that  my  answer  to  the  question  as  to 
whether  I  was  a  Democrat  and  would  abide  by  the  action  of  a  Demo- 
cratic caucus  on  these  matters  was,  that  while  I  was  a  Democrat,  I 
would  never  abide  by  the  action  of  any  caucus  that  might  force  me  to 
strike  a  blow  at  any  of  the  great  industries  of  my  State.  This  has 
been  my  unwavering  position  from  the  beginning. 

I  do  not  feel  that  this  is  or  ought  to  be  made  a  test  of  fealty  to 

the    National    Democratic    Party.     I    hope    and    I    believe    that    I    will 

never  be  placed   in   the  position   where   my  duty   to  my  national   party 

will    come   in    conflict   with   my   duty   to   my   people.     But,    if   ever    the 

4179—12185 


6 

time  does  come,  those  who  have  placed  thoir  faith  In  my  plighted  word 
will  And  that  their  faith  was  not  misplaced. 

If  my  mother  is  to  be  stabbed,  some  other  hand  than  mine  must  be 
found  to  wield  the  knife. 

I  will  now  quote  an  extract  from  my  speech  of  acceptance 
after  my  election,  which  was  also  at  once  published  in  the 
Louisiana  papers : 

Rut  tariff  duties  must  be  levied.  Agriculture  is  the  great  basic 
foundation  of  the  prosperity  of  Louisiana,  and  it  will  continue  to  be  so. 
Because  the  agriculturists  of  the  United  States  generally  raise  more 
than  our  own  people  consume  we  are  exporters  of  such  products,  and 
thus  they  do  not  receive  the  benefit  of  a  protective  tariff,  while  bearing 
so  many  of  its  unjust  burdens.  So,  if  a  tariff  can  be  levied  that  will 
help,  or  protect,  if  you  please,  those  who  follow  agriculture  as  a  liveli- 
hood, I  think  it  should  be  done.  In  Louisiana  at  least  two  of  our 
great  soil  productions  can  be  helped  or  protected  by  a  tariff  duty  ;  those 
two  are  sugar  and  rice. 

And  so  I  can  certainly  justify  myself  in  doing  what  I  can  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  to  help  these  great  agricultural  products  of 
Louisiana.  This  accords  with  my  sense  of  right  to  those  producers, 
with  my  sense  of  duty  to  my  State,  and  with  my  individual  sentiments 
as  well,  for  I  am  descended  from  a  long  line  of  agriculturists,  am  a  son 
of  the  soil,  and  racy  of  it. 

I  don't  see  why  party  fealty  should  prevent  me  from  standing  by 
these  great  industries  of  Louisiana,  but,  as  I  have  said,  if  it  does, 
national  fealty  must  yield  to  State  fealty,  as  it  did  in  the  time  of  the 
Civil  War. 

These  were  some  of  the  words  spoken  by  me  to  the  members 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  Louisiana,  including  three  who 
honored  me  by  their  votes  then,  who  have  since  been  themselves 
honored  by  being  elected  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
and  who  further  honored  me  by  coming  from  their  Chamber 
to-day  to  listen  to  these  remarks. 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  my  preelection  address  I  unequivo- 
cally declared  that  I  would  not  only  stand  for  a  duty  on  sugar, 
but  would  not  abide  by  the  action  of  any  Democratic  caucus 
that  sought  to  restrain  me  on  this  question. 

It  will  be  further  noted  that  in  my  postelection  address  I 
reiterated  this  statement,  thus  doubly  binding  myself. 

It  seems  to  me  that  every  member  of  this  body  should  readily 
recognize  the  fact  that  uuder  these  circumstances  I  can  not  vote 
for  the  passage  of  the  present  bill  while  it  carries  the  free- 
sugar  provision  without  personal  dishonor  and  the  attendant 
loss  of  my  own  self-respect,  as  well  as  the  respect  of  the  people 
of  my  State  and  of  my  brother  Senators,  all  of  whom  now 
understand  my  situation. 

On  the  third  proposition,  the  voice  of  the  people  of  Louisiana 
expressing  their  views  on  the  subject,  I  will  say  that  in  the 
first  days  of  June,  1912,  a  convention  of  the  Democratic  Party 
4179—12185 


7 

of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  composed  of  delegates  from  every 
part  of  the  State,  met  in  its  capital  city  of  Baton  Rouge  to 
select  delegates  to  the  approaching  National  Democratic  con- 
vention at  Baltimore  and  to  adopt  a  platform  setting  forth  the 
principles  of  the  State  Democracy  of  Louisiana. 

That  convention  overwhelmingly  refused  to  adopt  a  minority 
report  of  the  committee  on  resolutions,  signed  by  one  member 
thereof,  declaring  for  a  "  tariff  for  revenue  only  "  and  over- 
whelmingly adopted  the  following  resolution : 

We  arc  in  favor  of  a  revision  of  the  tariff  which  will  meet  the 
revenue  requirements  of  the  Nationai  Treasury  and  will  abate  the  pro- 
tective system  with  the  least  possible  abatement  of  our  business  fabric. 

We  hold  that  the  tariff  is  a  tax  paid  by  the  consumer,  but  in  re- 
ducing it  to  a  purely  revenue  basis  we  would  not  sanction  the  in- 
justice of  crudely  remodeling  the  tariff  schedules  in  such  a  way  as  to 
force  any  one  industry,  previously  dependent  on  the  tariff,  to  sell  in  a 
free-trade  market  and  buy  in  a  protected  one  ;  nor  would  we  contem- 
plate the  turning  of  the  American  market  over  to  manipulation  of 
foreign  tariffs  and  export  bounties,  where  the  results  would  be  the 
wiping  out  of  an  American  industry  by  a  temporary  lowering  of 
prices  and  a  subsequent  raising  of  prices  under  foreign  control  for 
foreign  enrichment. 

We  espouse  these  principles  not  solely  because  they  would  forbid  the 
heavy  and  cruel  blow  proposed  against  Louisiana,  but  because  they  are 
applicable  to  any  industry  in  any  State  and  because  they  are  the 
necessary  guides  to  all  just  men  striving  for  a  tariff  reform  which  will 
destroy  evils  for  the  consumer  without  creating  them  for  the  producer. 

It  is  evident  that  this  platform  resolution  of  the  Democratic 
Party  of  Louisiana  is  an  unmistakable  expression  of  hostility 
to  the  free-sugar  provision  of  the  present  tariff  bill,  the  resolu- 
tion specially  referring  to  the  free-sugar  bill  that  had  passed 
the  House  and  was  then  pending  in  the  Senate. 

And  so  I  feel  that  under  each  and  all  of  the  three  propositions 
laid  down  by  me  in  the  beginning  as  a  guide  for  my  action  in 
this  matter,  I  am  forbidden  to  vote  for  this  tariff  measure  unless 
amended  by  striking  out  the  provision  removing  all  duties  from 
sugar  at  the  end  of  three  years. 

Aside  from  these  special  reasons  which  would  prevent  me  as 
a  Representative  of  the  State  of  Louisiana  from  favoring  this 
new-fangled  Democratic  doctrine  of  free  sugar,  I  can  say  with 
perfect  sincerity  that  I  would  feel  most  hostile  to  the  abolition 
of  the  sugar  duty,  not  only  because  of  my  well-known  and  often- 
expressed  views  in  favor  of  legislation  that  would  advance  the 
agricultural  interests  of  any  part  of  my  country;  but  because 
of  the  tariff  policy  of  the  Democratic  Party,  with  which  I  have 
been  identified  since  I  was  old  enough  to  cast  my  first  vote. 

To  me  it  seems  almost  incredible  that  the  great  political  party 
which  lias  always  stood  so  steadfastly  for  the  doctrine  of  a 
4170—12185 


8 

revenue  tariff  should  now  appear  willing  to  abandon  its  settled 
and  unassailable  doctrine  on  the  question  of  a  duty  on  sugar. 

The  saying  that  sugar  is  an  Ideal  article  for  a  revenue  tax  is 
trite  and  has  never  been  disputed,  and  no  Democrat,  not  even 
a  free-sugar  Democrat  can  be  found  hardy  enough  to  deny  it, 
even  at  this  time. 

This  is  due  to  the  admitted  facts  of  the  case,  viz,  the  univer- 
sal consumption  of  the  article,  the  consequent  fairness  of  the 
distribution  of  the  tax  among  all  classes  of  the  people,  the  ease 
and  certainty  of  its  collection  by  the  Government,  and  the  fact 
that  three-fourths  of  the  duty  goes  into  the  Government  Treas- 
ury for  the  benefit  of  all  the  people,  while  only  one-fourth  inures 
to  the  protection  of  the  sugar  producer. 

For  these  reasons  sugar  has  always  been  held  in  the  past  by 
the  Democratic  Party  to  be  a  subject  most  eminently  fitted  for 
the  imposition  of  a  revenue  tax,  and  it  is  just  as  much  fitted 
for  it  in  the  present  and  for  the  future  as  it  has  been  in  the  past. 

I  have  briefly  condensed  above  the  reasons  why  the  Demo- 
cratic Tarty  has  in  the  past  so  steadfastly  upheld  the  justice  of  a 
tax  on  sugar,  but  they  are  given  far  better  in  the  language  of 
the  minority  members  of  the  Finance  Committee  in  their  report 
submitted  to  the  Senate  on  July  27,  1912,  on  the  Underwood 
free-sugar  bill,  which  had  passed  the  House,  the  said  minority 
report  advocating  a  reduction  of  33J  per  cent  from  the  existing 
rate  in  the  Payne-Aldrich  bill  and  abolishing  the  refiners'  differ- 
ential and  Dutch  standard,  while  the  Republican  majority  report 
advocated  the  retention  of  the  present  duty,  and  also  abolisbed 
the  refiners'  differential  and  Dutch  standard,  which  operates 
solely  in  the  interest  of  the  cane-sugar  refiners,  giving  neither 
protection  to  the  producers  nor  revenue  to  the  Government. 

I  quote  herewith  such  part  of  the  minority  report  as  is 
applicable  to  the  point : 

The  tariff  on  sugar  is  peculiarly  a  revenue  tariff.  Very  much  the 
major  part  of  the  tax  levied  upon  the  consumer  of  sugars  and  sweets 
goes  actually  into  the  United  States  Treasury  for  the  use  and  behoof 
and  benefit  of  the  American  people.  A  minor  part  of  the  tax  goes  into 
the  pockets  of  the  producers.  Upon  numberless  articles  in  the  Tayne- 
Aldrich  tariff  bill  the  duties  are  either  prohibitive  or  very  nearly  pro- 
hibitive, or  highly  exploitive,  and  in  all  these  cases  very  much  the 
major  part  of  the  tax  levied  upon  the  consumer  goes  into  the  pockets  of 
the  American  producers,  a  special  and  favored  class,  and  very  scantily 
and  sometimes  not  at  all  reaches  the  Treasury.  In  the  next  place,  the 
majority  of  the  tariff  schedules  which  have  been  adopted  by  the  House 
and  sent  over  to  the  Senate  during  this  Congress  make  a  reduction  of 
about  one-third.  In  the  face  of  its  record  in  connection  with  other 
bills,  the  House  reduced  the  duties  upon  sugars  and  the  products  of  cane 
and  sugar  l^ets  100  per  cent;  in  other  words,  entirely  canceled  the 
existing  duties.  It  seemed  to  us  that  this  was  not  in  keeping  with  the 
4179—12185 


9 

promise*  of  Democratic  platforms  to  reduce  present  protective  duties 
"gradually"  toward  and  Anally  to  a  revenue  basis.  We  have  seen  no 
reason  why  sugar  should  have  been  excepted  from  the  general  policy 
advocated  by  the  Democratic  Party  and  believed  by  us  to  be  right. 

Again,  in  levying  an  Import  duty  upon  sugar  forfrevenue  purposes, 
we  are  imitating  the  time-honored  and  time-just  Hied  precedents. 

This  report  was  signed  by  such  stalwart  tariff-for-revenue 
Democrats  as  Joseph  W.  Bailey,  F.  M.  Simmons,  W.  J.  Stone, 
John  Sharp  Williams.  John  W.  Kirn,  and  Chaki.es  F.  John- 
son, all  of  whom,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  named,  are  still 
members  of  the  Senate. 

In  this  report  they  enunciated  the  soundest  Democratic  doc- 
trine and  Imitated,  as  they  correctly  said,  "the  time-honored 
and  time-justified  precedents"  of  the  Democratic  Party. 

No  Democrat  in  this  body  dreamed  of  denying  the  absolute 
correctness  of  this  statement  considered  as  an  exposition  of 
Democratic  doctrine. 

It  was  true  then,  and  it  is  as -true  now  as  it  was  then. 

If  it  is  not  correct  Democratic  doctrine,  I  wish  some  Demo- 
cratic Senator  to  rise  in  his  seat  after  I  have  concluded,  or  as 
later  thereafter  as  he  sees  fit,  and  show  wherein  it  is  incorrect. 

These  words  were  quoted  by  my  colleague  from  Louisiana  in 
his  great  and  unanswerable  argument  on  this  question  addressed 
to  the  Senate  on  June  2  last,  but  I  choose  to  repeat  them  in 
this  address,  for  they  can  not  be  repeated  too  often  in  these 
times  of  dangerous  Democratic  departure  from  Democratic  doc- 
trine, and  they  should  be  burned  into  the  brains  and  hearts  and 
consciences  of  Democratic   Senators. 

Small  wonder  is  it  that  in  the  debate  on  the  sugar  bill  on 
that  same  27th  of  July,  1912,  the  senior  Senator  from  Missis- 
sippi [Mr.  Williams],  than  whom  no  member  of  this  body  is 
better  posted  on  the  history  of  the  Democratic  Party,  including 
necessarily  its  tariff  policy,  should  have  said  : 

There  is  not  the  slightest  anticipation  in  the  mind  of  any  intelligent 
man  that  it  will  be  placed  on  the  free  list,  not  even  if  a  Democratic 
Senate  and  a  Democratic  House  and  a  Democratic  President  come  into 
power. 

His  thorough  knowledge  of  Democratic  principles  in  regard  to 
the  tariff  fully  justified  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  in  making 
this  statement,  but  we  now  see  verified  the  truth  of  the  saying: 
"  It  is  the  unexpected  that  happens." 

I  am  not  false  to  the  principles  of  the  Democratic  Tarty  in 
refusing  to  follow  it  along  the  strange  and  devious  pathway  it  is 
now  pursuing  with  regard  to  the  tariff  on  sugar. 

I  am  true  to  those  principles,  and  it  is  the  Democratic  Party 
itself  that  is  seeking  to  depart  from  them. 

4179—12185 


10 

I  am  no  traitor  to  the  Democratic  Party  because  loynlfy  to  my 
State  forbids  me  to  vote  for  this  bill  in  its  present  form. 

Not  since  the  time  I  cast  my  first  vote  in  1SGS  for  the  National 
Democratic  Party  have  I  ever  faltered  in  my  allegiance  to  its 
nominees. 

More  than  once  in  the  dark  days  of  Louisiana  politics,  days 
that  have  happily  passed  forever,  I  have  taken  my  life  in  my 
hands  at  the  polls  in  the  effort  to  aid  their  election,  and  twice 
during  that  stormy  time  I  was  arrested  by  United  States  mar- 
shals and  carried  to  the  city  df  New  Orleans,  250  miles  from  my 
home,  charged  with  alleged  violations  of  the  Civil  Rights  Bill, 
though  my  experience  in  these  matters  was  the  experience  of 
hundreds  of  other  Democrats  in  my  State  and  probably  in  her 
sister  Southern  States. 

Not  in  all  that  time  have  I  failed  to  vote  in  any  election,  and 
never  have  I  scratched  a  Democratic  ticket — national,  congres- 
sional, State,  district,  parochial,  or  municipal. 

There  have  been  times  when  my  judgment  was  strongly 
opposed  to  certain  policies  of  the  National  Democratic  Party, 
notably  in  1S0G  on  the  free-silver  question. 

But  while  to  the  knowledge  of  all  in  my  community  I  was  a 
Gold  Democrat,  it  never  entered  into  my  mind  to  think  of  leav- 
ing the  regular  Democratic  Party  to  train  with  those  Democrats 
who  followed  another  standard,  although  its  followers  embraced 
many  of  the  ablest  and  best  men  of  my  State. 

On  the  contrary,  I  presided  over  the  parish  ratification  meet- 
ing held  in  my  city  and  told  them  there  was  only  one  National 
Democratic  Party  in  the  country  and  its  nominees  were  Bryan 
and  Sewall  and  not  Palmer  and  Buckner. 

And  I  did  my  best  to  steady  my  people  against  the  tide  of 
opposition  that  was  running  high  among  the  business  interests 
of  my  State,  and  when  the  election  came,  against  the  remon- 
strance of  my  family  and  friends,  I  rose  from  a  bed  of  severe 
illness  of  many  days'  duration  and  was  driven  to  the  polls  in 
order  to  deposit  my  ballot,  accompanied  by  my  family  physician, 
with  his  hand  on  my  pulse  and  assisting  my  tottering  steps, 
in  the  discharge  of  what  I  considered  a  political  duty,  and  hop- 
ing to  set  a  good  example  to  others. 

And  since  I  have  been  a  Member  of  this  body  I  have  attended 
every  Democratic  caucus  held  and  have  never  failed  to  vote  in 
every  respect  in  accordance  with  the  expressed  wish  of  those 
caucuses,  except  in  the  solitary  instance  of  the  sugar  tariff  bill 
of  last  year,  when  I  refused  to  vote  for  a  reduction  of  33 J  per 
cent,  under  which  the  sugar  industry  of  my  State  could  not 
survive. 

4179— 121S5 


11 

I  have  the  right*  to  say  that  in  so  far  as  concerns  the  perform- 
ance of  duty  to  my  party  at  all  times  in  the  past  my  conscience 
is  void  of  offense. 

And  the  people  of  Louisiana  have  at  all  limes  retained  their 
allegiance  to  the  National  Democratic  Party  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  economic  policies  of  that  party  were  not  as  favorable  to 
the  development  of  their  great  material  resources  and  industries 
as  were  the  economic  policies  of  the  Republican  Party. 

Yet  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  National  Demo- 
cratic Party  owes  more  to  the  State  of  Louisiana  than  the  State 
of  Louisiana  owes  to  the  National  Democratic  Party. 

Louisiana  received  no  aid  from  the  National  Democratic  Party 
when  she  overthrew  carpetbag  and  negro  rule  and  established 
the  right  of  the  intelligence  and  virtue  of  the  State  to  control  it 
instead  of  its  ignorance  and  corruption. 

Through  the  courage  and  determination  of  her  white  people 
she  established  white  supremacy  in  the  face  of  national  Repub- 
lican domination  and  with  Federal  bayonets  at  the  polls,  sta- 
tioned there  in  the  attempt  to  coerce  her  people,  and'  she 
maintained  it  under  successive  national  Republican  adminis- 
trations, and  she  will  maintain  it  forever,  no  matter  what  party 
may  be  in  power  at  Washington. 

Happily  for  Louisiana  and  for  the  country  at  large,  the  time 
has  long  passed  when  the  Republican  Party  had  either  the 
ability  or  the  inclination  to  coerce  the  States  of  the  South,  and 
the  time  will  never  come  again  in  the  history  of  this  country. 

The  great  majority  of  the  present  generation  in  Louisiana 
have  grown  up  since  the  dark  days  of  reconstruction  and  know 
nothing  of  it  save  by  tradition. 

And  the  only  difference  they  have  seen  in  the  State,  arising 
from  changes  of  national  administrations,  is  the  difference  of  a 
few  Federal  officeholders. 

They  have  seen  the  hand  of  the  General  Government  under 
Republican  administrations  always  stretched  out  to  afford  them 
relief  in  their  times  of  distress  due  to  pestilence  and  floods, 
and  they  know  that  the  National  Democratic  Party,  if  it  had 
been  in  power,  could  have  done  no  more  for  them  in  this 
regard. 

They  know  nothing  of  what  their  fathers  endured  in  the  10 
years  that  followed  the  Civil  War,  and  their  thoughts  are  of 
the  present  material  conditions  of  their  State  and  not  of  the 
animosities  of  the  past. 

But  we,  the  fathers,  remember,  and  we  have  constantly 
striven  to  steady  the  impulses  of  the  sons  in  favor  of  the 
National  Democratic  Party  and  keep  them  true  to  the  faith 

4170—12185 


12 

And  now  they  are  to  bo  slain  by  the  party  in  which  they  have 
placed  (heir  trust  and  for  which  the  people  of  Louisiana  have 
given  of  their  time,  labor,  money,  and  even  their  blood  in  the 
earlier  days,  and  of  their  time,  labor,  and  money  in  the  later 
days  to  establish  in  power;  and  when  the  fair  form  of  Louisiana 
has  been  pierced  by  this  poisoned  shaft,  like  the  stricken  eagle 
of  which  the  poet  tells,  sbe  can  view  in  her  body,  while  writbing 
in  agony,  the  fatal  arrow  tipped  with  a  feather  from  her  own 
wing. 

It  is  hard;  very,  very  hard. 

But  the  Democratic  House  has  decreed  free  sugar  and  the 
Democratic  Finance  Committee  and  Democratic  Senate  caucus 
have  ratified  the  action  of  the  House,  and  the  blow  will  prob- 
ably fall  on  Louisiana,  unless  the  consciences  of  some  Senators 
are  quickened  sufficiently  to  make  them  stay  their  hand  before 
the  final  act  of  the  tragedy  is  concluded. 

Some  alleviation  of  the  blow  is  given  in  consequence  of  the 
three  years  of  grace  granted  at  the  instance  of  President  Wil- 
son, and  in  allowing  the  present  duty  to  remain  until  March, 
1914,  a  concession  urgently  requested  by  both  the  eastern  cane- 
sugar  refiners  and  the  Louisiana  cane-sugar  and  western  beet- 
sugar  producers;  and  for  this  much  we  are  thankful. 

In  this  connection  I  wish  in  behalf  of  the  people  of  Louisiana 
to  thank  the  senior  Senator  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  Williams] 
for  having  vainly  tried  in  both  the  majority  subcommittee  and 
full  committee  to  keep  a  duty  on  sugar,  and  while  we  regret 
that  he  would  not  vote  for  the  retention  of  the  duty  in  the  Demo- 
cratic Senate  caucus,  we  appreciate  his  having  done  ns  much 
for  us  as  he  did,  he  being  the  only  Senator,  so  far  as  I  am 
advised,  who  so  voted  in  either  the  sub  or  full  committee. 

And  I  wish  to  give  in  the  name  of  the  State  of  Louisiana 
special  thanks  to  my  honored  and  respected  friend,  the  senior 
Senator  from  South  Carolina  [Mr.  Tillman],  who  was  the 
only  southern  Senator,  and,  indeed,  the  only  Senator  from  any 
State  not  interested  in  the  sugar  industry,  who  voted  to  the  last 
in  the  caucus  against  free  sugar  and  only  yielded  to  its  dictate 
when  further  resistance  to  its  evident  will  was  unavailing,  he 
being  moved  in  his  action  not  only  by  sympathy  for  his  fellow 
Democrats  of  Louisiana,  but  by  his  knowledge  that  this  step 
was  not  only  a  departure  from  the  true  principles  of  the  Demo- 
cratic Party  but  was  in  his  judgment  a  grave  economic  error 
as  well. 

I  wish  to  assure  him  now  that  while  he  has  long  commanded 
in  the  past  the  respect  of  my  people  on  account  of  the  great 
force  as  well  as  the  sterling  integrity  of  his  character,  in  the 
4179— U:i85 


13 

future  that  respect  will  be  combined  with  gratitude  and  affec- 
tion. 

No  attempt  has  boon  made  and  none  probably  will  bo  made  on 
this  floor  to  show  that  this  act  of  the  Democratic  Party  is  not 
a  most  radical  departure  from  its  "  time-honored  and  time- 
justified  precedents." 

The  reports  of  both  the  House  and  Senate  majority  commit- 
tees on  the  reasons  for  this  change  are  singularly  meager,  the 
first  body  contenting  itself  with  saying: 

The  action  of  the  committee  with  regard  to  sugar  shows  an  appre- 
ciation of  the  commercial  conditions  involved  and  the  committee's 
desire  to  respond  to  the  public  demands  for  free  sugar, 

while  the  latter  gave  no  reasons  at  all. 

Considering  that  they  were  all  Democrats  it  is  not  surprising 
that  they  preferred  to  give  as  little  discussion  as  possible  to 
the  subject. 

An  effort  has  been  made,  however,  on  this  floor,  to  prove  that 
the  Baltimore  platform  of  the  Democratic  Party  calls  for  free 
sugar,  and  to  justify  this  legislation  on  that  ground.  This  is  a 
very  far-fetched  conclusion,  but  some  justification  must  be 
sought  for  this  sudden  departure  from  "  the  time-honored  and 
time-justified  precedents  "  of  the  Democratic  Party,  and  this  is 
a  case  of  "  any  port  in  a  storm." 

I  not  only  deny  that  the  Democratic  platform  calls,  even  by 
inference,  for  free  sugar,  but  claim  that,  on  the  contrary,  its 
spirit,  if  not  its  letter,  clearly  forbids  such  legislation,  though  I 
admit  that  under  its  letter,  though  not  its  spirit,  a  material 
reduction  of  the  duty  on  sugar  is  justifiable. 

The  statement  therein  that  "material  reductions  be  speedily 
made  upon  the  necessaries  of  life"  would  in  its  letter  apply  to 
the  duty  on  sugar,  assuming  it  to  be  a  necessary  of  life  and 
admitting  it  to  be  such  for  the  purpose  of  argument;  but  we 
must  consider  that  the  spirit  of  these  words  was  intended  to 
apply  to  such  necessaries  of  life  as  have  greatly  advanced  in 
price  during  the  last  10  years,  and  therefore  are  conducive  to 
the  present  high  cost  of  living;  but  this  can  not  apply  to  sugar, 
because  it  is  the  one  necessary  of  life  that  has  steadily  lowered 
in  price  during  that  time  while  all  others  have  increased. 

But  at  the  utmost  it  could  not  be  claimed  that  this  clause 
provided  for  more  than  a  material  reduction  in  the  duly  on 
sugar. 

The  positive  inhibition  against  free  sugar  is  found  in  the 
clause : 

We   recognize   that   our   system   of   tariff  taxation    is    intimately   con- 
nected   with   the   business   of   the  country,    and   we   favor    the   ultimate 
4179—12185 


14 

nltainmcnt   of   the  principles  we   advocate  by   legislation  that  will   not 
Injure  or  destroy  legitimate  Industry. 

If  the  Louisiana  cane  and  Western  beet-sugar  industry  of 
this  country  that  has  been  built  up  under  "  our  system  of  tariff 
taxation,"  and  which  represents  over  $100,000,000  of  capital 
invested  in  factories  alone,  to  say  nothing  of  land,  teams,  and 
implements,  and  which  in  cultivation  and  harvesting  alone  gives 
employment  to  more  than  200,000  laborers,  and  directly  or 
indirectly  contributes  to  the  support  of  2,000,000  people  of  the 
United  States,  is  not  a  legitimate  industry,  1  should  like  to  know 
what  is. 

My  colleague,  in  his  address  already  referred  to,  has  pointed 
out.  the  immense  importance  of  the  industry  in  those  depend- 
encies of  the  United  States — Porto  Rico,  Hawaii,  and  the  Philip- 
pines, the  representatives  of  the  first  two  named  insisting  that 
their  prosperity  is  entirely  dependent  on  the  production  of  sugar 
and  that  the  abolition  of  the  duty  thereon  would  bankrupt  them 
through  the  consequent  destruction  of  the  industry,  while  the 
representatives  of  the  last  named  insist  that  they  can  not  con- 
tinue the  industry,  which  is  a  large  and  growing  one  with 
them,  without  the  aid  of  a  duty;  and  I  shall  not  dwell  further 
on  that  phase  of  the  question. 

I  repeat  that  the  Democratic  platform  never  demanded  ex- 
pressly or  inferentially  the  total  abolition  of  the  duty  on  sugar. 

The  platform  committee  of  the  Baltimore  convention  was 
composed  of  a  representative  from  each  State,  and  that  com- 
mittee appointed  from  its  ranks  a  subcommittee  of  11  to  draft 
the  platform  for  submission  to  the  full  committee,  which  in 
turn  submitted  it  to  the  convention  for  ratification. 

That  subcommittee  consisted,  among  others,  of  Senators  Kern, 
O'Gorman,  "Walsh,  Martin  of  Virginia,  Pomkrene,  and  Clarke 
of  Arkansas,  all  of  whom  are  still  Members  of  this  body. 

It  is  fairly  safe  to  assume  that  these  gentlemen  knew  what 
they  meant  by  the  language  they  used  and  certainly  safe  to 
assume  that  they  understood  what  they  meant  better  than  do 
those  who  were  not  members  of  the  committee  and  had  nothing 
to  do  with  framing  the  resolutions. 

If  any  of  these  Senators  considered  at  the  time  they  framed 
this  platform  that  it  demanded  the  total  abolition  of  the  duty 
on  sugar,  I  would  like  to  have  them  say  so  at  the  conclusion  of 
my  remarks  or  at  any  time  thereafter  that  may  suit  their 
convenience. 

I  appprehend  that  none  of  them  will  so  state,  believing  that 
the  most  liberal  construction  of  the  language  by  any  of  them 
would  be  that  it  left  the  matter  open  for  the  future  considera- 
tion of  the  Democratic  Party. 
417U— 12185 


15 

We  know  from  what  has  previously  been  said  on  this  floor 
that  the  .Senator  from  Nevada  [Mr.  Newlands],  who  acted  as 
a  member  of  the  full  committee,  considered  that  the  language 
committed  the  party  against  free  sugar,  and  he  preached  that 
interpretation  of  it  throughout  the  campaign. 

We  know  that  the  Senator  from  Montana  [Mr.  Walsh],  who 
was  a  member  of  the  subcommittee,  held  and  proclaimed  the 
same  view  in  his  campaign,  and.  as  was  very  properly  stated 
on  this  floor  by  the  Senator  from  Mississsippi  [Mr.  Williams]  on 
the  15th  of  May  last :  "  There  sits  before  me  the  Senator  from 
Montana  [Mr.  Walsh],  who  made  several  campaigns  in  the 
West  in  the  bravest  possible  manner  for  the  Democratic  Party, 
and  he  was  faced  by  his  opponent  in  one  of  those  campaigns, 
who  said :  '  If  the  Democrats  came  into  power  they  would  put 
sugar  upon  the  free  list.'  The  Senator  denied  it,  and  he  had 
every  right  to  deny  it." 

Through  the  address  of  my  colleague  on  May  15  last,  pre- 
viously referred  to,  we  have  the  statement  of  Congressman 
Broussakd  of  Louisiana,  who  will  succeed  me  in  this  body  in 
3915,  and  who  was  himself  a  member  of  that  subcommittee  of 
11  selected  to  draft  the  platform. 

Mr.  Broussaro,  who  was  particularly  interested  in  the  forma- 
tion of  a  platform  that  would  not  indicate  a  spirit  of  hostility 
to  the  great  sugar  industry  of  his  State,  and  who  I  feel  morally 
sure  was  placed  on  that  subcommittee  because  of  the  fact  that 
he  represented  the  greatest  sugar-producing  district  of  Louis- 
iana (though  I  have  no  warrant  from  him  to  make  this  state- 
ment), and  who  had  exceptional  opportunities  for  knowing  the 
mind  of  the  committee  on  that  question,  not  only  most  emphatic- 
ally denied  in  that  statement  that  the  language  of  the  platform 
was  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  Democratic  Tarty 
advocated  free  sugar,  but  asserts  positively  that,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  committee  refused  to  consider  the  telegrams  with 
which  it  was  being  bombarded  at  the  time  by  Frank  C.  Lowry, 
agent  and  representative  of  the  Federal  Sugar  Refining  Co.,' 
asking  the  committee  to  include  in  the  platform  a  plank  for 
free  sugar. 

Mr.  Broussaro  says  further  that  the  ardent  plea  of  the  Sen- 
ator from  Kentucky  [Mr.  James]  for  free  sugar  made  before 
the  drafting  of  the  platform  met  with  no  response  from  either 
the  subcommittee  that  drafted  the  ilatform  or  from  the  full 
committee. 

It  is  absolutely  certain  that  Mr.  Broussaro  was  convinced  of 
the  truth  of  this  statement. 
4  1  7'J— 12185 


1G 

He  was  a  Wilson  delegate  at  tlie  Baltimore  convention,  and 
was  very  largely  Instrumental  In  influencing  the  Democratic 
Tarty  of  Louisiana  to  select  a  number  of  Wilson  delegates. 

lie  returned  to  Louisiana  and  assured  the  people  of  that  State 
that  in  the  event  of  the  election  of  Gov.  Wilson  through  the 
success  of  the  Democratic  Tarty  the  great  sugar  industry  of 
Louisiana  would  neither  be  destroyed  nor  materially  injured, 
and  dwelt  on  the  platform  declaration  of  the  Baltimore  con- 
vention as  an  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  his  statement. 

Col.  Robert  Ewing,  national  committeeman  from  Louis- 
iana, like  Mr.  Broussard,  a  strong  Wilson  man,  and,  like  him, 
powerfully  instrumental  in  securing  the  selection  of  Wilson 
delegates  and  who  went  to  the  convention  as  a  Wilson  dele- 
gale  himself,  and  who  had  great  opportunities  of  knowing  what 
might  be  called  "the  secret  history"  of  the  Baltimore  con- 
vention, was  also  fully  satisfied  that  under  the  platform  of  the 
party  the  sugar  industry  of  his  State  would  be  safe  and  he, 
too,  preached  that  doctrine  to  her  people,  never  believing  that 
anything  more  than  a  reduction  of  the  present  duty  would  be 
possible  under  a  Democratic  administration. 

Some  of  the  largest  sugar  planters  of  Louisiana  went  to  the 
Baltimore  convention  as  Wilson  delegates  and  they  returned 
home  entirely  satisfied  that  their  industry  was  safe. 

The  press  of  Louisiana,  that  discussed  the  situation,  fully 
agreed  with  this  view  and  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  State  not  a  single  newspaper  expressed  a  contrary  view. 

The  people  of  Louisiana  relied  on  the  representations  of  their 
delegates  to  the  Baltimore  convention  and  on  the  statements  of 
the  press  and  on  the  assurance  given  them  by  the  language  of 
the  platform. 

The  .speech  of  acceptance  of  the  Democratic  nominee  further 
fortified  their  minds  on  this  question  and  no  public  word  that 
fell  from  his  lips  during  the  campaign  was  calculated  to  re- 
move the  impression  they  had   received. 

In  this  connection  I  wish  to  say  that  I  feel  morally  sure  the 
presidential  nominee  of  the  Democratic  Tarty  did  not  expect  at 
the  time  of  his  nomination  or  during  his  campaign  to  become  an 
advocate  of  free  sugar.  I  feel  morally  sure  that  his  determi- 
nation on  this  point  was  reached  at  some  period  after  his 
election. 

I  have  no  warrant  from  him  or  anyone  speaking  for  him 
for  this  conclusion  of  mine,  but  I  must  believe  it  to  be  a  correct 
conclusion  unless  he  states  it  is  an  erroneous  one. 

I  know  of  no  clearer  exposition  of  this  question,  considered 
with  reference  to  the  meaning  of  the  Democratic  platform  in 
4179—12185 


17 

relation  to  Sugar  and  the  position  of  the  people  of  Louisiana  on 
the  sugar  question  than  that  Riven  by  Col.  Robert  Ewing.  na- 
tional committeeman  from  Louisiana,  heretofore  alluded  to,  in 
an  editorial  written  by  him  in  one  of  his  news] tapers,  the  New 
Orleans  Daily  States,  on  24th  March  last  and  which  is  repro- 
duced in  its  entirety  below  : 

SUa AR    AND    THE    PARTY    PLATFOltM. 

Our  excellent  contemporary,  the  Mobile  Register,  ridicules  the 
IMcayune's  suggest  ion  that  a  "  free-sugar  "  bill  in  the  House  involves 
any  conspiracy  against  the  sugar  industry. 

"  It  is  well  to  remember,"  says  the  Register,  "  that  the  party  plat- 
form was  written  plainly  and  put  before  the  people,  and  the  people 
knew  what  they  were  doing  when  they  elected  the  party  to  full  control 
of  the  Government." 

That  is  quite  true,  but  our  Mobile  contemporary  will  find  nothing  in 
the  platform  or  the  speeches  of  the  Democratic  nominee  that  either 
imposes  on  the  party  an  obligation  to  put  sugar  on  the  free  list  or 
would  justify  it  in  action  certain  to  be  destructive  to  the  industry. 

The  inner  history  of  the  Baltimore  convention  has  never  been  writ- 
ten ;  but  the  official  records  show  that,  although  Senator  James,  the 
permanent  chairman,  declared  for  free  sugar,  the  convention  in  its 
platform  eliminated  sugar  by  name  and  put  therein  no  language  which 
even  by  implication  could  be  construed  into  a  pledge  or  promise  to 
strike  it  from  the  dutiable  list. 

What  the  convention  said  in  substance  at  Denver  was  that  all  in- 
dustries should  stand  on  the  same  relative  level  and  that  no  reduction 
should  be  made  that  would  paralyze  or  destroy  any  industry.  At  Balti- 
more it  reaffirmed  that  doctrine. 

President  Wilson  in  his  speeches  followed  literally  the  language  and 
the  spirit  of  the  platform.  lie  declared  unequivocally  for  a  revision 
downward  of  the  tariff  duties.  But  nowhere  did  he  assert  a  duty  ought 
to  be  removed  or  so  radically  cut  as  to  carry  with  it  extinction  of  any 
industry. 

Louisiana  is  making  no  demand  for  a  violation  of  the  party  pledges. 
It  is  not  seeking  to  stand  in  the  way  of  a  vindication  of  party  pledges. 
It  could  not  afford  to  do  so  without  inviting  inevitable  disaster.  It 
is  only  asking  that  its  industry  shall  not  be  singled  out,  discriminated 
against  and  destroyed,  when  that  industry  produces  an  article  which 
the  Democratic  Party  from  its  birth  has  considered  an  ideal  article  on 
which  to  levy  tribute  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  Government,  and  when 
in  the  latest  expression  of  the  party  and  its  candidate  we  find  the  solium 
pledge  that  revision  shall  be  gradual  and  fair,  so  as  not  to  bring  about 
commercial,   industrial,  or  financial  cataclysms. 

Louisiana  opposition  to  free  sugar  involves  no  sacrifice  or  surrender 
of  Democratic  principle.  It  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  party  tradition 
and   contemporaneous   party  expression. 

Louisiana  does  not  expect  to  see  sugar  picked  out  for  special  favor  by 
the  retention  of  the  duty  now  imposed  on  the  foreign  product.  It 
expects  to  see  sugar  cut.  But  it  is  appealing  for  fair  play,  for  equal 
treatment  with  the  industries  of  other  States,  for  a  lowering  of  the  rate 
that  will  still  leave  the  planter  a  margin  of  profit,  at  least  until  there 
is  opportunity  for  a  readjustment  of  agricultural  conditions. 

Our  Mobile  contemporary  is  not  within  the  record  when  it  suggests, 
Inferential ly,  that  free  sugar  is  a  party  pledge.     The  "  party  platform 
was  written  plainly."     Louisiana  is  perfectly  willing  to  abide  the  result 
if  the  platform  is  carried  out  in  its  letter  and  spirit. 
4179— 11US5 


18 

I  quote  an  extract  from  another  editorial  in  the  same  paper 
headed  "Louisiana  and  the  Tariff"  appearing  in  its  issue  of 
June  2,  VJV.i: 

LOUISIANA   AND  THE  TARIFF. 

What  Louisiana  Democrats  ask,  therefore,  is  not  a  concession  of  pro- 
tection for  the  sugar  industry,  but  a  mere  abiding  by  the  pledges  of  the 
party  in  the  last  campaign  and  the  carrying  out  of  a  time-honored 
Democratic  policy  of  preserving  sugar  as  a  revenue  producer. 

The  language  of  National  Committeeman  Ilobert  Ewing  cor- 
tectly  represents  the  attitude  of  the  people  of  Louisiana  on  the 
question  of  a  tariff  on  sugar. 

They  understood  the  possibility  or  even  probability  of  a  re- 
duction of  the  duty  and  they  were  prepared  to  accept  it,  assum- 
ing it  to  be  a  reasonable  reduction  that  would  permit  the  indus- 
try to  survive. 

They  did  not  expect  it  to  be  specially  favored  over  other  indus- 
tries, but  they  certainly  did  not  expect  it  to  be  specially  singled 
out  for  destruction  by  the  Democratic  Party  as  is  now  sought  to 
be  done. 

They  would  submit  to  the  present  reduction,  and  strive 
bravely  and  intelligently  to  make  a  living  under  it,  if  only  the 
duty  would  be  permitted  to  continue. 

And  the  deductions  and  conclusions  of  Col.  Ewing  as  to  the 
moaning  of  the  tariff  plank  of  the  Democratic  platform  are  such 
as  would  be  most  naturally  drawn  by  any  unbiased  person  of 
ordinary  intelligence  who  had  no  personal  or  political  interest  in 
seeking  to  twist  the  meaning  to  coincide  with  his  own  wishes. 

My  people  hold,  and  their  Senators  hold  with  them,  that  the 
destruction  of  their  industry  through  a  removal  of  the  duty  is 
not  only  a  cruel  injustice  to  them  but  a  violation  both  of  the 
party  platform  and  of  the  settled  tariff  policy  of  the  party,  and 
many  thousands  of  voters  in  the  country  will  claim  and  believe 
that  their  votes  for  the  Democratic  Tarty  were  obtained  under 
false  pretenses. 

The  circumstances  attending  this  complete  reversal  of  the 
policy  of  the  Democratic  Party  on  the  question  of  a  tariff  on 
sugar  make  it  all  the  harder  for  those  who  must  suffer  on 
account  of  that  reversal,  for  it  is  well  known  to  all  who  have 
posted  themselves  on  the  subject,  though  all  of  them  may  not 
be  willing  to  admit  it,  that  the  agitation  for  free  sugar  which 
has  culminated  in  the  present  action  of  the  Democratic  Party 
was  begun  and  carried  forward  to  successful  completion  by  the 
group  of  eastern  cane-sugar  refiners  that  I  call  the  American 
Sugar  Trust,  composed  of  the  American  Sugar  Refining  Co., 
the  Federal  Sugar  Iiefining  Co.,  the  Arbuckle  people,  and  two 
4170—12185 


19 

or  three  other  corporations,  none  of  whom  cultivate  either  sugar 
cane  or  sugar  heets  in  this  country. 

I  know  that  the  name  of  "Sugar  Trust"  was  appplied  orig- 
inally to  the  American  Sugar  Refining  Co..  the  most  powerful 
of  these  concerns,  and  that  some  of  the  others,  and  also  some 
Democrats,  would  he  unwilling  to  admit  that  the  others  are  a 
part  of  the  "trust,"  but  I  claim  that  for  all  practical  purposes 
they  have  been  in  a  combination  for  years. 

I(  is  also  well  known  to  all  who  have  read  the  testimony 
before  the  various  committees,  though  all  of  them  may  not  be 
willing  to  admit  it,  that  these  cane-sugar  refiners  are  united  in 
their  demand  for  either  free  sugar  or  a  large  reduction  in  the 
present  duty.  The  American  Sugar  Refining  Co.,  on  account  of 
its  large  sugar  holdings  in  Cuba,  does  not  wish  perhaps  for 
absolute  free  sugar  because  it  would  then  cease  to  receive  the 
benefit  of  the  20  per  cent  Cuban  preferential  it  now  enjoys,  and 
would  be  content  with  a  heavy  cut,  but  even  that  company 
would  prefer  free  sugar  to  a  retention  of  the  present  rate. 

It  is  also  well  known  to  all  who  have  read  the  testimony, 
though  all  of  them  may  not  be  willing  to  admit  it,  that  the 
reason  why  this  group  of  refiners  desires  either  free  sugar  or  a 
great  reduction  in  the  rate  of  duty  is  because  of  the  tremendous 
and  ever-increasing  development  of  the  beet-sngar  industry  of 
the  Western  States,  that  has  been  competing  with  them  in  the 
sale  of  sugar  and  forced  their  prices  down. 

They  were  forced  to  admit  this  on  the  witness  stand,  and  yet 
some  Democrats  seem  willing  to  believe  that  these  people  were 
actuated  by  the  desire  to  reduce  the  price  of  sugar  to  ths  con- 
suming public. 

Four  years  ago,  when  this  agitation  for  free  sugar  was  begun 
by  these  refiners,  there  was  no  complaint  by  the  American  con- 
sumers on  account  of  the  price  of  sugar.  They  knew  the  price 
was  low,  knew  that  the  price  had  fallen  while  the  price  of  other 
necessaries  of  life  had  steadily  risen,  and  they  were  not  com- 
plaining at  paying  5  cents  per  pound  for  the  finest  white 
refined  sugar. 

The  refiners  did  not  care  about  the  Louisiana  product,  for 
they  used  that  themselves,  it  being  principally  what  is  techni- 
cally called  "  raw  sugar." 

But  the  beet-sugar  industry  of  the  West  turned  out  ready  for 
consumption  the  same  grade  of  refined  sugar  as  tbey  did,  and 
was  constantly  increasing  its  output  until  it  was  encroaching  on 
what  these  eastern  refiners  were  pleased  to  designate  in  their 
testimony  as  "  our  territory,"  meaning  the  territory  east  of  the 
Mississippi  River. 
417'J— 12185 


20 

It  boon  1110  necessary  to  Cheek  this  strong  competition,  which, 
as  they  admit,  was  reducing  their  profits  too  greatly. 

And  so  (liis  agitation  was  started,  being  conducted  by  the 
Federal  Sugar  Helming  Co.,  of  which  Mr.  C.  A.  Spreckels  was 
the  head,  under  the  supervision  of  its  sales  agent,  Mr.  Dowry, 
fraudulently  protending  to  be  the  "  Committee  of  Wholesale 
Grocers"  of  the  United  States,  which  fraud  was  finally  exposed 
through  the  testimony  given  before  the  Hardwick  committee. 

And  by  representations  to  the  people  that  they  would  get 
sugar  from  1£  to  2  cents  per  pound  chenper  under  free  sugar 
they  succeeded  in  working  up  the  sentiment  in  its  favor  that  the 
Democratic  Parly  thinks  it  would  be  good  political  policy  at  the 
present  time  to  defer  to,  even  at  the  cost  of  the  subversion  of 
party  principle. 

The  testimony  on  these  points  has  been  detailed  by  my  col- 
league and  by  other  Senators  who  have  preceded  me  in  debate, 
and  I  will  not  repeat  it  here. 

And  what  will  be  the  result  of  this  action  of  the  Democratic 
Party,  so  ardently  desired  by  this  Cane  Sugar  Trust?  Certainly 
the  admitted  destruction  of  the  Louisiana  industry  and  also  of 
the  western  industry  if  its  representatives  are  to  be  believed; 
but  if  not  entirely  destroyed,  at  least  partially  so,  and  its 
further  development  permanently  checked,  so  that  it  will  no 
longer  be  a  successful  competitor  of  this  Eastern  Cane  Sugar 
Trust  .that  I  have  alluded  to,  forcing  it  to  lower  its  prices  to  the 
American  consumers. 

And  then  what  will  result?  By  every  law  of  business  that 
governs  in  such  cases  and  by  the  experience  of  the  past  this 
Cane  Sugar  Trust  will  raise  its  prices  when  the  competition 
against  it  is  removed. 

It  will  no  longer  fear  that  the  advent  of  the  beet-sugar  crop 
on  the  scene  of  action  in  a  time  of  scarcity  will  cause  it  to 
lower  its  prices  from  1£  to  2  cents  per  pound,  as  it  did  in  1911. 
It  will  be  in  supreme  control  of  the  market,  its  only  competitor 
having  been  killed  by  the  action  of  the  Democratic  Party,  and 
the  consuming  public  will  be  at  its  mercy. 

But  it  seems  to  be  the  policy  of  the  Democratic  Party  at  this 
time  to  pay  far  more  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  eastern  cane 
sugar  refiners  than  to  the  interests  of  the  American  cane  and 
beet  sugar  producers,  and  to  defer  entirely  to  the  opinion  of  the 
refiners  as  to  the  effect  of  free  sugar  that  they  were  demand- 
ing, ignoring  entirely  the  opinion  of  the  producers. 

Thus  in  the  report  of  the  majority  on  the  House  free-sugar 

bill  of  last  year  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Claus  Spreckels  alone  as  to 

the  desirability  of  free  sugar  is  quoted,  he  arguing  for  it,  of 

course. 

4179—12185 


21 

Likewise,  in  the  same  report  he  is  quoted,  to  prove  that  the 
price  to  the  American  consumer  would  be  reduced  by  the  full 
amount  of  the  duty. 

The  report  is  very  unfair  in  attempting  to  prove  the  same 
thing  by  Mr.  Willett,  the  sugar  expert,  by  quoting  a  frag- 
mentary statement  of  bis  testimony. 

Mr.  Willett  can  only  be  fairly  judged  by  his  last  expression 
on  the  subject,  which  was  that  the  abolition  of  the  duty  might 
reduce  the  price  here  at  times,  and  at  other  times  it  would  not, 
but  that  if  the  domestic  production  was  destroyed  the  American 
price  would  necessarily  be  set  by  the  world  price,  which  was 
often  higher  that  here;  and  that  the  only  certain  way  to  make 
a  permanent  reduction  of  price  here  was  to  increase  the  domes- 
tic production,  the  increase  of  the  domestic  production  being 
more  to  the  interest  of  the  American  consumer  than  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  duty. 

This  statement  was  fully  set  forth  by  the  Senator  from  Utah 
[Mr.  Smoot]  in  his  recent  address  to  the  Senate,  and  I  will  not 
quote  it  here. 

The  report  says  "  the  industrial  position  of  refining  requires 
primary  consideration." 

Certainly,  in  so  far  as  the  position  of  the  eastern  cane  sugar 
refiners  is  concerned,  they  receive;!  ■primary  consideration'' 
in  the  last  sugar-tariff  bill  and  in  the  present  one.  They  have 
been  given  all  they  asked,  and  they  could  not  well  expect  more. 

This  is  the  same  Mr.  Claus  Spreckels  who  contributed  $5,000 
to  the  Democratic  campaign  fund  last  year,  just  50  times  what 
I  felt  able  to  contribute,  and  then  compelled  to  give  it  in  two 
monthly  instalments:  but  he  had  a  great  special  interest  to  be 
subserved  by  the  success  of  the  Democratic  Party,  while  I  had 
only  the  general  interest  of  a  citizen. 

Moreover,  he  naturally  felt  sore  against  the  Republican  Party, 
it  being  through  that  party  he  had  been  sued  to  return  to  the 
Government  $119,000  of  the  sum  it  claimed  his  company  had 
defrauded  it  out  of  through  false  sugar  weights,  as  has  been 
shown  by  my  colleague,  and  besides  he  knew  he  could  not  expect 
free  sugar  from  the  Republican  Party.  How  much  more  was 
subscribed  by  the  Sugar  Trust  under  various  names  I  do  not 
know. 

It  can  safely  be  assumed  that  these  eastern  refiners  will  con- 
tribute heavily  to  the  next  national  Democratic  campaign  fund, 
for  if  gratitude  does  not  compel  them  to  do  so,  self-interest  cer- 
tainly will. 

The  chairman  of  the  House  Ways  and  Means  Committee  very 
plainly  showed  that  his  sympathies  were  with  the  eastern  re- 
finers and  against  the  great  and  growing  beet-sugar  interests  of 
4179—12185 


22 

this  country  by  his  remarks  in  the  House  last  May  when  he  said 
the  beet-sugar  people  were  after  taxing  the  American  people  in 
order  to  finally  bring  their  sugar  to  the  Atlantic  seaboard  and 
drive  out  all  competition. 

Hut  suppose  they  did  drive  the  eastern  sugar  trust  out  of 
business,  which  is  the  very  danger  the  refiners  fear  from  the 
expanding  beet  sugar  industry. 

They  can  only  do  it  by  underselling  them;  that  is,  by  giving 
the  consumers  cheaper  sugar  than  the  trust  could  give  them, 
and  I  thought  cheaper  sugar  was  the  party  slogan? 

The  sugar-beet  people,  operating  500  or  1,000  factories  by 
that  time  in  at  least  20  States  could  not  form  a  trust  as  these 
half  dozen  cane-sugar  refiners  have  done  and  can  always  do. 

But  if  it  was  possible  for  the  beet-sugar  people  operating 
over  so  great  an  area  to  form  a  trust  and  put  up  the  price  of 
sugar  they  could  at  any  time  be  curbed  by  abolishing  the  duty; 
but  if  the  domestic  industry  is  destroyed  it  can  not  be  renewed 
readily  and  the  eastern  refiners  could  not  be  restrained  in  their 
extortion  because  sugar  would  be  free  already. 

And  if  any  interest  is  to  be  destroyed  which  is  best  to  destroy, 
the  business  of  the  eastern  refiners,  who,  as  my  colleague  told 
you,  produce  nothing  and  employ  only  10,000  men,  or  the  great 
sugar-beet  industry,  producing  all  its  product  in  field  and  factory 
and  giving  employment  to  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people  in 
farm  and  factory  work? 

Think  of  the  possible  result  to  this  country  if  this  great 
necessary  of  life,  the  production  of  which  all  other  countries 
so  sedulously  foster,  should  be  no  longer  produced  here  and  we 
should  have  a  war  with  a  strong  foreign  power !  All  our  sugar 
would  have  to  be  brought  from  over  seas  and  a  stronger  naval 
power  than  ourselves  could  prevent  its  transportation.  Owing, 
I  am  very  sorry  to  say,  to  the  action  of  the  Democratic  Tarty 
during  the  last  two  years,  we  are  falling  so  far  behind  in  naval 
preparation  that  at  the  present  rate  we  will  become  a  fifth- 
rate  power  in  four  years,  inferior  even  to  Japan.  Is  not  this 
food  for  thought? 

Mr.  Willett  is  undoubtedly  right  in  claiming  that  the  in* 
crease  of  production  will  bring  about  the  decrease  of  price  to 
the  American  consumer;  and  I  deny  the  assertion  that  the 
people  of  Louisiana  are  enriching  themselves  at  the  expense  of 
the  remainder  of  the  people. 

I  claim  that  on  the  contrary  they  are  assisting  in  keeping 
down  the  price  of  sugar  in  this  country  through  their  produc- 
tion of  it,  a  production  which  would  greatly  expand  in  Louisiana 
if  there  was  some  stability  in  the  sugar-tariff  question. 
4179—12185 


23 

Can  it  bo  supposed  that  the  price  of  an  article  in  a  country 
will  decrease  on  account  of  the  decrease  of  its  production  in 
that  country? 

Yet  that  is  the  theory  on  which  the  free-sugar  advocates  in 
the  Democratic  Party  seem  to  be  working. 

I  am  not  fighting  free  sugar  solely  because  it  is  a  Louisiana 
product  and  because  the  destruction  of  the  industry  there  will 
inflict  incalculable  damage  on  my  State — damage  from  which  it 
will  take  her  long  years  to  recover  and  from  which  she  will  not 
recover  in  my  lifetime. 

I  am  not  a  sectionalist.  I  wish  for  the  prosperity  of  all  parts 
of  my  country,  and  I  am  unwilling  to  see  any  part  of  it  suffer. 

I  stood  on  this  floor  in  1011  fighting  against  the  Canadian 
reciprocity  treaty  because  it  was  unjust  to  the  farming  interests 
of  some  parts  of  the  country,  though  not  injuring  any  agricul- 
tural product  of  Louisiana,  and  said  that  I  stood  for  the  agri- 
cultural interests  of  every  section  of  this  country — North,  South, 
East,  and  West — and  the  interests  of  the  wheat  and  oat  and 
barley  growers  of  the  Northwestern  border  States  and  of  the 
Middle  West  and  of  the  dairy  producers  of  New  York  and  Ver- 
mont would  receive  from  me  the  same  consideration  that  I 
would  extend  to  the  agricultural  interests  of  Louisiana  or  any 
Southern  State. 

And  even  if  Louisiana  should  be  injured,  I  would  wish  other 
States  to  be  uninjured. 

After  seeking  unavailingly  in  the  Senate  Democratic  caucus 
to  have  the  free-sugar  provision  of  the  bill  stricken  out,  so  that 
the  duty  could  permanently  remain  at  1  cent  per  pound.  I  voted 
for  the  resolution  of  another  Senator  fixing  the  permanent  duly 
at  one-half  cent  per  pound  after  May,  191G,  saying  to  the  caucus 
that  I  knew  the  Louisiana  industry  could  not  live  under  that 
rate  of  duty,  but  even  if  the  cane-sugar  industry  had  to  die  I 
wished  the  beet-sugar  industry  to  live  if  possible,  not  only  be- 
cause it  was  a  great  agricultural  interest  of  the  West,  but  be- 
cause in  its  survival  lay  the  only  hope  of  salvation  of  the  Ameri- 
can public  from  the  domination  of  the  American  Sugar  Trust, 
composed  of  the  group  of  eastern  cane-sugar  refiners. 

No;  I  wish  to  contribute  as  well  as  I  can  to  the  prosperity  of 
the  agricultural  interests  of  every  part  of  my  country  as  well 
as  that  of  my  own  State,  and  where  they  can  be  helped  by  the 
imposition  of  a  duty  on  foreign  products  that  compete  with  their 
own  I  am  always  ready  to  give  it  to  them. 

And   therefore  I  am   glad   that  the  citrus  fruit   growers  of 
Florida  have  been  given  protection  by  this. bill,  even  though  the 
Senators  from  that  State  are  willing  to  see  the  Louisiana  sugar 
industry  destroyed. 
4179—12183 


2* 

And  I  do  not  stop  at  agricultural  interests,  although  they  ap- 
peal  to  me  more  closely  than  do  manufacturing  interests,  for.  as 
J  said  in  thai  same  Canadian  reciprocity  speech  that  I  have  pre- 
viously alluded  to,  I  did  act  wish  to  see  destroyed  a  single  indus- 
try of  my  country  that  was  assisting  In  her  development  and 
giving  employment  to  her  citizens,  and  therefore  I  am  glad  that 
the  cotton  manufacturers  of  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  North 
Carolina,  and  Virginia  also  have  heen  given  protection  by  this 
bill,  even  though  the  Senators  from  those  States  are  willing  to 
see  the  Louisiana  sugar  industry  destroyed. 

And  as  no  warrant  has  been  given  by  the  platform  of  the 
Democratic  Tarty  to  pass  a  free-sugar  bill,  so  has  no  warrant 
been  given  it  to  do  so  by  the  vote  of  the  American  people  at  the 
last  national  election,  nor  for  that  matter  was  any  indorsement 
given  by  that  vote  to  the  Democratic  theory  of  a  tariff  for 
revenue  only. 

The  Democrats  did  not  win  on  the  tariff  issue,  though  in  cer- 
tain localities  that  issue  contributed  to  their  success. 

I  hear  Senators  occasionally  say  on  this  floor  that  the  verdict 
of  the  people  last  year  was  against  protection  and  the  doctrine 
has  been  repudiated  by  the  country.  In  the  face  of  the  vote 
I  marvel  how  such  statements  can  be  made. 

The  returns  show  that  the  combined  Republican  and  Progres- 
sive vote  outnumbered  the  Democratic  vote  by  more  than 
1,250.000,  and  we  know  that  not  less  than  three-quarters  of  a 
million  regular  Republicans  voted  the  Democratic  ticket  just 
in  order  to  defeat  Col.  Roosevelt  in  States  where  it  was  not 
possible  for  the  Republicans  to  win,  and  the  Democratic  Presi- 
dential ticket  received  a  majority  vote  over  all  other  candidates 
in  only  11  out  of  the  4S  States  of  the  Union,  all  of  them  being 
Southern  States. 

President  Wilson  could  most  correctly  say  at  Newark,  N.  J., 
on  May  1 : 

I  want  everybody  to  realize  that  I  have  not  been  taken  in  by  the 
results  of  the  last  national  election.  The  country  did  not  go  Demo- 
cratic in  November.  It  was  impossible  for  it  to  go  Republican,  because 
it  could  not  tell  what  kind  of  Republican  to  go. 

And  likewise  Speaker  Champ  Clark  spoke  correctly  when,  in 
a  speech  delivered  in  Washington  on  June  2,  he  said,  speaking 
of  the  Democratic  Party  : 

We  are  in  power  by  a  2,000,000  minority. 

I  have  heard  remarks  on  this  floor  to  the  effect  that  the 
Democrats  in  their  tariff  ixdicy  are  embodying  the  views  of 
the  Progressive  Party  also,  and  quoting  its  platform  declaration 
of  condemnation  of  the  Payne- Aldrich  bill ;  but  they  seem  not  to 
be  familiar  with  or  ignore  that  part  of  the  Progressive  platform 
4179—12185 


25 

which  unequivocally  indorses  the  principle  of  a  tariff  for  pro- 
tection in  these  words : 

We  believe  in  a  protective  tariff  which  shall  equalize  conditions  of 
competition  between  the  United  States  and  foreign  countries  both  for 
the  farmer  and  the  manufacturer  and  which  shall  maintain  for  labor  an 
adequate  standard  of  living, 

and  also  unequivocally  denounced  the  tariff  policy  of  the  Demo- 
cratic Tarty  in  these  words : 

The  Democratic  Tarty  is  committed  to  the  destruction  of  the  pro- 
tective system  through  a  tariff  for  revenue  only,  a  policy  which  would 
inevitably  produce  widespread  industrial  and  commercial  disaster. 

It  was  not  the  belief  of  the  American  people  in  the  tariff 
policy  of  the  Democratic  Tarty  that  elected  its  candidate,  but 
the  split  in  the  Republican  Tarty  that  gave  him  a  plurality 
election. 

Whether  the  Democratic  Tarty  will  succeed  next  time  de- 
pends on  two  facts — the  practical  vorking  of  the  new  tariff 
law  and  the  ability  of  the  Republicans  to  get  together  again. 

If  the  new  law  works  well,  the  Democrats  may  succeed  even 
if  the  Republican  breach  is  healed.  If  it  is  not  healed,  the 
Democrats  will  certainly  win ;  but  if  it  is  healed  and  the  law 
works  injuriously  to  the  interests  of  the  country,  then  the 
Democrats  will  surely  lose. 

I,  however,  now  venture  the  prediction  that  in  the  event  of 
Democratic  defeat  in  the  next  national  election  that  party 
will  never  again  declare  for  a  tariff  for  revenue  only,  but  will 
sacrifice  its  tariff  policy  on  that  subject  then  just  as  it  is  sacri- 
ficing it  now  on  sugar,  and  for  the  same  reason,  the  hope  of 
profiting  politically  thereby. 

There  are  many  shades  of  belief  in  this  country  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  tariff,  ranging  from  high  tariff  to  free  trade, 
though  the  latter  is  not  practicable  now ;  but  certainly  those 
who  believe  in  a  tariff  for  revenue  enly  are  necessarily  obliged 
to  be  free  traders  if  they  could  find  a  way  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  the  Government  without  the  imposition  of  import  duties. 

In  my  younger  days  I  was  taught  that  the  difference  between 
the  tariff  policies  of  the  Republican  and  Democratic  Tarties  was 
that  the  former  believed  in  a  tariff  for  protection  with  inci- 
dental revenue,  while  the  latter  believed  in  a  tariff  for  revenue 
with  incidental  protection. 

That:  was  the  accepted  definition  of  the  tariff  views  of  the 
opposing  parties  then. 

Of  course   every   tariff   levied   for   revenue   purposes  solely, 
gives  just  as  much  protection  to   the  home  article  to  the  ex- 
tent of  the  duty  imposed  on  the  foreign  article  as  if  it  has  been 
levied  for  protective  purposes. 
4179—12185 


2G 

Personally  I  believe  in  a  tariff  for  revenue  but  not  in  a 
tariff  for  revenue  only,  because  if  I  believed  in  a  tariff  for 
revenue  only,  I  must  dismiss  from  my  mind  any  consideration 
whatever  for  the  help  of  citizens  of  my  own  country  against 
tbose  of  foreign  countries,  in  so  far  as  the  application  of  tbe 
tariff  policy  is  concerned,  and  tbat  I  can  not  bring  my  mind  to 
consent  to. 

I  believe  in  imposing  a  moderate  duty  on  all  articles  of 
foreign  manufacture  that  come  in  competition  with  articles  of 
home  manufacture,  a  duty  just  high  enough  to  enable  the  Ameri- 
can producer  to  make  a  reasonable  profit  through  the  exercise  of 
diligent  and  intelligent  application  to  his  business,  but  not  high 
enough  to  permit  extortion  or  create  monopoly  by  destroying 
competition. 

I  do  not  wish  to  see  foreigners  given  an  advantace  over  Ameri- 
cans, and,  if  necessary,  I  do  not  object  to  giving  a  little  more 
for  an  American  than  for  a  foreign-made  article,  for  I  do  not 
feel  that  I  am  losing  anything  by  helping  American  people  to 
live,  whether  they  be  farmers,  manufacturers,  or  factory- 
workers. 

Of  course  this  doctrine  should  not  apply  where  conditions  of 
production  in  this  country  are  such  that  the  duty  would  lay 
too  heavy  a  burden  on  the  people  of  this  country. 

The  rule  of  reason  should  prevail,  but  such  arguments  against 
protection  per  se  as  "  raising  bananas  in  hothouses "  and 
"  raising  bananas  or  lemons  in  Maine  "  have  no  application. 

I  do  not  know  whether  the  doctrine  I  have  just  enunciated 
makes  me  liable  to  the  charge  of  being  a  protectionist,  but  if 
being  willing  to  see  tariff  duties  levied  on  foreign  articles  that 
will  help  Americans  and  particularly  American  workingmen  to 
live  decently  and  respectably  makes  me  a  protectionist,  then  I 
can  say  tbat  I  am  neither  ashamed  nor  afraid  to  wear  the  name. 

Under  the  principles  I  have  enunciated,  sugar  is  one  of  the 
proper  articles  on  which  to  levy  a  revenue  duty  which  will  also 
permit  it  to  succeed  in  this  country  in  competition  with  the 
foreign  product,  under  the  moderate  protection  thus  given,  and, 
indeed,  if  no  sugar  at  all  was  produced  in  this  country  it  would 
still  be  a  proper  article  to  tax  under  the  Democratic  theory  of 
taxation. 

I  insert  here  an  editorial  from  Henry  Watterson's  paper,  the 
Louisville  Courier  Journal,  of  11th  April,  entitled  "Tariff  on 
Sugar,  True  Democratic  Usage": 

TAB  IFF    FOR    REVENUE,    TRUE    DEMOCRATIC    USAGE. 

Sugar  is  conceded  the  world  over  to  be  the  ideal  revenue  producer. 
In  all   countries  and  everywhere   it  is  both  a  necessity  and  a  luxury. 
There  is  uot  a  man,  woman,  or  child  in  America  that  does  not  consume 
4179—12185 


27 

sugar  in  some  form,  whether  In  necessaries,  such  as  tea,  coffee,  drugs, 
medicines,  and  canned  foods,  or  in  luxuries,  such  as  cakes,  desserts, 
pastries,  confectionery,  cordials,  chewing  gum,  and  the  like.  Sugar 
is  consumed  in  greater  quantities  by  the  well-to-do  than  by  the  poor. 
A  tax  on  sugar  is  therefore  the  fairest,  squarest,  most  equitable,  and 
just  tax  that  can  be  levied.  Its  effects  are  felt  least  by  the  poor,  and 
its  burdens,  if  any,  are  borne  by  the  rich. 

These  are  the  very  considerations  that  induced  the  English 
Parliament  to  reject  this  year,  by  a  decisive  vote,  after  full 
debate,  a  proposition  to  remove  the  duty  from  sugar,  the  friends 
of  the  proposition  urging  the  abolition  of  the  duty  on  the  same 
grounds  urged  here — that  it  was  a  necessary  of  life  and  would 
reduce  the  cost  of  liviug. 

We  all  know  that  Col.  Watterson  is  one  of  the  ablest  and  most 
consistent  advocates  of  the  Democratic  theory  on  the  tariff, 
and  no  smell  of  protection  has  ever  adhered  to  his  garments. 

No  Democrat  will  dispute  the  correctness  of  the  statement. 

Then,  why  will  the  Democratic  Party  depart  now  from  its 
true  principles,  for  the  hope  of  gaining  a  temporary  political 
success?  It  may  receive  present  benefit,  but  I  believe  it  will 
receive  permanent  injury  by  its  depature  from  political  prin- 
ciple, and  in  this  case  from  political  morality  as  well. 

Why  should  the  Democratic  Party,  with  its  revenue  tariff 
record,  sacrifice  the  great  revenue  from  sugar  while  obtaining 
a  less  revenue  through  protection  of  other  articles  not  nearly  so 
legitimate  a  source  of  revenue  as  sugar,  and  which  are  also 
necessaries  of  life,  as  clothing,  for  example? 

For  this  bill  does  give  protection  to  some  manufacturers,  and 
it  is  not  denied. 

I  find  no  fault  with  that,  for  I  wish  them  to  live,  and  the 
Democratic  platform  promised  that  revision  should  be  gradual. 

What  I  protest  against  is  the  observance  of  the  platform 
promise  with  respect  to  some  articles  and  a  violation  of  it  with 
regard  to  this  great  industry  of  Louisiana. 

No  other  State  has  been  so  discriminated  against. 

Coal  is  the  principal  production  of  West  Virginia,  but  free 
coal  will  not  close  a  single  mine  in  that  State;  and  coal  was 
put  on  the  free  list  last  year  on  the  motion  of  a  West  Virginia 
Senator,  himself  one  of  the  largest  coal  operators  of  the  State. 

Zinc  is  a  very  large  and  very  important  mineral  industry  of 
Missouri,  but  free  zinc  or  free  lead  will  not  begin  to  injure 
Missouri  as  free  sugar  will  Louisiana. 

Sugar  is  the  most  important  agricultural  interest  of  Colorado 
at  the  present  time,  but  the  destruction  of  it  in  Colorado  will 
not  disastrously  injure  one-third  of  the  people  that  it  will  in 
Louisiana,  where  the  people  of  one-half  of  the  State  directly  or 
indirectly  are  dependent  on  its  prosperity  for  their  own,  and 
4179—12185 


28 

whore  the  other  half  will  feel  the  bad  results  for  years,  due  to 
diminished  revenues  to  support  the  State  expenses,  resulting 
from  decrease  of  values. 

I  have  no  hesitation  in  declaring  that  as  an  economic  proposi- 
tion the  people  of  Louisiana  can  far  better  afford  to  live  under 
the  Payne-Aldrich  tariff  bill  than  have  the  sugar  industry  of  the 
State  destroyed. 

There  is  not  a  Senator  in  this  body  who,  if  his  State  was  as 
disastrously  affected  by  this  bill  as  Louisiana  is,  would  vote 
for  it. 

He  may  say  now  he  would  and  he  may  think  now  he  would, 
but  if  he  was  put  to  the  test  he  would  shrink  back  and  refuse 
to  do  it.  If  he  did  not,  in  my  opinion  at  least,  he  would  not  be 
worthy  to  represent  his  State. 

The  destruction  of  the  sugar  industry  of  this  country  would 
not  only  greatly  injure  Louisiana  for  a  long  time,  but  the  re- 
sults would  be  seriously  felt  in  other  States. 

I  doubt  if  any  one  industry  in  this  country  has  greater 
ramifications  throughout  its  length  and  breadth  or  sets  in 
operation  more  wheels  of  commerce  in  more  States  of  the  Union 
than  does  the  sugar  industry  of  Louisiana. 

I  have  with  me  a  statement,  which  I  will  show  to  any  Sen- 
ator desiring  to  see  it,  of  the  list  of  supplies  purchased  and  used 
in  the  erection  of  a  sugar  factory  on  Georgia  plantation,  at 
Mathews,  in  the  parish  of  Lafourche,  La.,  and  where  they  were 
manufactured. 

I  will  not  encumber  the  Record  by  giving  a  list  of  these 
articles,  but  14  States  contributed  to  their  manufacture,  viz: 
Alabama,  Connecticut,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Kentucky,  Louisiana, 
Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Missouri,  New  Jersey,  New  York, 
Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  Tennessee. 

And  what  is  true  of  the  cane-sugar  factories  of  Louisiana  in 
this  respect  is  also  true  of  the  beet-sugar  factories  of  the  West. 

I  also  have  a  statement,  which  I  will  show  to  any  Senator 
desirous  of  seeing  it,  giving  the  list  of  supplies  used  in  the  cul- 
tivation of  Georgia  plantation  which  I  will  not  enumerate  here, 
but  will  state  they  were  furnished  by  IS  States,  viz :  Alabama, 
Illinois,  Indiana,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Massachusetts,  Michigan, 
Mississippi,  Missouri,  Minnesota,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  North 
Carolina,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Tennessee,  Texas,  and  Wisconsin; 
the  mules,  I  may  add,  being  furnished  exclusively  by  the  free- 
sugar  State  of  Missouri  and  the  half  free-sugar  State  of  Ken- 
tucky. 

And,   of   course,   the  water   and   rail   transportation   of   the 
country  are  utilized  in  bringing  to  the  factory  site  from  those 
4170—12185 


29 

various  States  all  the  supplies  Deeded  for  its  erection  and  main- 
tenance and  bringing  to  the  plantation  all  the  supplies  necessary 
for  its  cultivation  and  carrying  from  it  all  of  its  yearly  produce. 

Can  any  other  industry  be  found  which  contributes  more 
generally  to  the  prosperity  of  other  States  of  the  Union?  And 
this  is  the  industry  which  has  been  fostered  by  the  tariff  policy 
of  the  Democratic  Party  from  its  birth  and  which  the  same 
party  now  seeks  to  destroy  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 

This  factory  of  which  I  have  spoken  cost  about  $400,000  to 
bring  to  its  present  state  of  efficiency,  and  three  years  from 
now.  after  it  shall  have  manufactured  its  last  crop  of  cane,  its 
value  will  have  been  practically  destroyed,  for  its  complicated 
and  costly  machinery  can  not  be  used  for  other  purposes  and 
will  bring  only  the  price  for  which  it  will  sell  as  old  junk. 

And  what  is  true  of  this  particular  sugar  factory  in  Louisiana 
in  this  respect  is  true  of  the  200  other  factories  in  that  State, 
aggregating  some  $40,000,000  in  value,  for  it  is  true,  as  was  said 
by  the  senior  Senator  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  Williams]  on  the 
floor  of  this  Chamber  on  the  15th  day  of  last  May,  speaking  of 
the  effect  of  free  sugar  on  Louisiana  : 

I  am  perfectly  willing  to  admit  that  free  sugar  will  dismantle  every 
sugar  house  in  Louisiana.  I  know  it  as  well  as  my  name  is  John 
Williams. 

And  this  confiscation  of  property  and  the  resultant  bank- 
ruptcy of  so  many,  which  will  be  its  effect,  is  wrought  by  the 
Democratic  Party,  while  the  people  of  my  stricken  State  look 
despairingly  on  while  they  are  being  slaughtered  in  the  house  of 
those  who  should  be  their  friends. 

Oh  !  the  pity  of  it ;  oh  !  the  shame  of  it ! 

I  do  not  say  the  people  of  Louisiana  who  are  directly  or  indi- 
rectly dependent  on  the  sugar  industry  for  their  livelihood  will 
never  recover  from  this  cruel  and  needless  blow,  for  such  is  not 
my  belief. 

But  they  must  tread  the  paths  of  adversity  for  long  years  to 
come  while  struggling  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  new  situation, 
and  many  who  have  lived  in  comfort  will  die  in  poverty. 

But  in  all  this  land  there  are  no  more  courageous  or  resource- 
ful men,  no  more  devoted  or  self-sacrificing  women,  than  those 
of  my  own  dear  native  State  of  Louisiana. 

They  have  proved  these  traits  of  their  character  time  and 
again  in  the  past,  through  the  direful  s'ress  of  war  and  pesti- 
lence and  fiood,  and  they  will  continue  to  prove  them  in  the 
future. 

They  may  be  stricken  to  the  earth  for  a  time  by  this  blow 
dealt  in  utter  disregard  of  their  rights,  but  they  will  rise  again 

41  7'.» — 12185 


30 

through  the  iuherent  virtues  of  their  proud  and  self-reliant 
natures. 

I  owe  lo  these  people  of  my  State  a  far  higher  measure  of 
devotion  than  I  owe  to  the  Democratic  Party. 

They  sent  me  here,  relying  on  my  plighted  word  given  hefore 
my  election,  that  in  such  an  extremity  as  that  with  which  I  am 
now  confronted,  my  duty  to  my  State  would  outweigh  my  duty 
to  my  party. 

I  told  them  after  my  election  that  they  who  had  placed  their 
trust  in  my  word  would  never  be  able  to  say  that  their  trust 
had  been  misplaced. 

Honor  and  duty  alike  demand  that  I  vote  against  this  bill 
while  it  embodies  the  provision  denounced  by  the  Slate  Demo- 
cratic convention  of  Louisiana  that  met  in  June  of  1912  as  "  a 
heavy  and  cruel  blow  against  Louisiana." 

And  I  repeat  here  and  now  what  I  said  to  the  Legislature  of 
Louisiana  on  the  5th  day  of  December,  1910:  "If  my  mother 
must  be  stabbed,  some  other  hand  than  mine  must  be  found  to 
wield  the  knife."  God  helping  me,  I  will  stand  by  my  word  and 
by  my  people  to  the  end. 

4179—1^185 

o 


T     TYER8TT5    <•> 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


22Qcf5lLL 


LD  21-95m-ll,'50(2877sl6)476 


320952 

-      -/ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


